Trio Handed FFP Embargoes
Monday, 15th Dec 2014 11:34
The Football League has confirmed that Blackburn Rovers, Leeds United and Nottingham Forest are the first clubs to have been handed transfer embargoes for failing to meet the requirements of Financial Fair Play (FFP).
The trio exceeded the maximum permitted loss of £8 million during the 2013/14 season.
In a statement, the Football League said that other sides could also face embargoes: “The Football League is currently in discussions with a number of other clubs over their FFP submissions and will confirm any further FFP embargoes, if any, in due course.
“It will also now consider submissions from the three clubs promoted to the Premier League and the three clubs relegated to League One at the end of the 2013/14 season.”
Clubs who have been promoted to the Premier League who transgressed the rules will face significant fines. QPR, who are reportedly set to be fined upwards of £30 million, have indicated that they will look to launch a legal challenge.
The embargo, which starts on January 1st, means the three clubs will be unable to register any new players on either a permanent or loan basis unless they have 24 or fewer ‘established’ players and only then within certain guidelines or on a one in, one out basis, again within parameters set by the Football League.
The embargo will be lifted at the end of the season if the clubs are able to show that they have hit this season’s FFP target of of £6 million.
Last week, Town announced losses of £7.2 million for the year to June 2014 with managing director Ian Milne having previously confirmed that the Blues would hit their FFP target: “We’ll be within FFP. We won’t face any embargoes."
Photo: Action Images
Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.
|salforduniblue added 11:59 - Dec 15|
I wonder how many fans Leeds will bring to their inevitable appeal hearing
|Suffolk_n_Proud added 12:25 - Dec 15|
What a joke. So they can't sign any players in January unless blah blah blah, they will still be able to sign players. Then the seasons over and they can spend loads in the summer again. They are probably laughing thinking big deal
|RegencyBlue added 12:36 - Dec 15|
The punishments certainly don't seem as severe as once suggested and I think were already watered down once anyway.
Personally I think FFP will inevitably become mired in legal arguments and court cases for years so I'm not holding my breath just yet!
|parkinshair added 12:52 - Dec 15|
I agree that this doesn't sound like much of a punishment. Add a nipple cripple and maybe a Chinese burn into the mix and I think clubs will begin to think twice.
|hampstead_blue added 12:58 - Dec 15|
QPR appealing? What a joke.
Ban them all.
|theblueginger added 13:08 - Dec 15|
Leeds fans will undoubtably clai this is another example of them being picked on by the Football league #blinkered.
I am not happy with the added stipulations and general watering down though. If you are going to inflict an embargo, make it a complete one.
This watering down of the punishments will only provide a precedent for clubs to challenge FFp and go for court cases instead of being responsible and abiding by the rules.
|TotalBlue added 13:55 - Dec 15|
Just done some looking up and any transfer embargo has the same exclusions you can sign TEMPORY players if your squad is below 24. I take it though they can still sell maybe a good time to get a bargain.
|ericclacton added 14:07 - Dec 15|
What on earth is going on?
|Monkey_Blue added 14:09 - Dec 15|
The Football League are however I believe under absolutely no obligation to allow relegated premiership clubs to play in its leagues. If clubs like QPR take legal action they are then exposing themselves to the prospect of having to stay up or pay up eventually Given that, if championship clubs see themselves as future premiership clubs that might also be a big enough threat for them to tow the line.
|Len_Brennan added 14:13 - Dec 15|
“The Football League is currently in discussions with a number of other clubs over their FFP submissions and will confirm any further FFP embargoes, if any, in due course."
I think they need to look very carefully at the books of Bournemouth, Middlesbrough & Derby ... oh yeah & maybe Brentford, Watford & Norwich while they're at it.
|jabberjackson added 15:21 - Dec 15|
You can see how we, and other clubs in the FL might be forced to sell off the family silver, i.e. McG, Mings to balance the books
This seems yet again to make the rich richer and vv, as clubs like Leicester with massive TV revenue can pick up our best without making a significant debt in the coffers
The problem will be when they come down
The principle though is correct, and given time and buy-in by the clubs will make football a profitable business again, and hopefully force player wages down to something a bit more palatable to the ordinary man
If this means that Forest, who I still see as a major threat to ITFC, have one hand tied behind their back in January, I, for one, will be pretty pleased.
|ArnieM added 15:37 - Dec 15|
Transfer embargos?? Toothless load of crap. Deduct points from the offenders.
|runningout added 16:24 - Dec 15|
Shouldn't throw your ropey opinions of the mentioned clubs too soon, as our own books are not exactly sqeaky clean
|jabberjackson added 16:27 - Dec 15|
Watch out everybody
Runningout is now a Forensic Accountant!
|ArnieM added 16:38 - Dec 15|
Runningout. The only thing ropey on here is you.
|jas0999 added 17:25 - Dec 15|
Hardly a major punishment is it. You can't sign players unless you get rid of one first and still have considerably more established players than say us!
|Michael11 added 20:02 - Dec 15|
So Nottingham Forest can spend £10m in the summer but they can't spend in January? What sort of punishment is that? If that's the punishment for FFP then everyone will break it. Give them all a 10 point deduction!
|purplealien added 20:51 - Dec 15|
I guess this makes the permanent signing of Noel Hunt more likely. Perhaps we should make a few cheeky offers. Assombalonga anyone?
|HKitfc added 04:21 - Dec 16|
This is a joke!!!
Clubs will be prohibited from registering any new professional players (permanent contract or loan) unless they have:
• 24 or fewer established players (players aged 21 or over that have made at least 5 starting appearances for the club).
Where clubs have fewer than 24 established players, they will only be permitted to sign players in the following circumstances (with the player in question being added to the club’s list of established players regardless of his age or previous playing experience):
• Where the employee costs of a player being signed are less than £600,000 per annum (or pro-rata if signed on a shorter contract).
Where clubs have 24 established players, they will be permitted to trade on a ‘one out, one in’ basis but only if the employee costs of the player coming in to the club are no more than whichever is the lower amount of:
• 75% of the equivalent costs of the player going out.
• Or a maximum of £600,000 per annum (or pro-rata if signed on shorter contract)
• Clubs under an FFP embargo will be permitted to sign a goalkeeper on an emergency basis (in line with existing regulations).
• Clubs under an FFP embargo will not be permitted to pay transfer fees or compensation fees for professional players.
• Clubs under an FFP embargo will not be permitted to pay a loan fee to another club, they may only pay the player’s wage (or a contribution towards it).
• For incoming players, clubs can only pay Agents’ Fees as a benefit in kind to the player in question (as long as they do not exceed the £600,000 employee costs limit).
Read more at http://www.football-league.co.uk/news/article/2014/championship-financial-fair-p
|Surco72 added 14:41 - Dec 16|
This is exactly what I said in the summer about the club hiding behind the FFP when not spending , what is the point of being put under a transfer embargo when you have signed a load of players in the summer it is no punishment .
If they need a loan player they just ship one out to a lower league club , no set rules at the start so they will do very well to fine clubs or dock points
|blues1 added 17:25 - Dec 16|
no surco. read the post above which clearly states the rules. so it is a punishment that will affect the teams. no loan nowadays happen without a loan fee being paid so that will in effect prevent that from happening. and as for the one in, one out rule, that not gonna help that much neither, as the fact they can only pay the player coming in what the player they get rid of is earning will prevent them from improving what they already have, plus they cant pay a transfer fee neway so that again lessens their ambitions signing wise. yes, I do think the punishments could be, and probably be harsher but this is certainly not as weak a punishment as some seem to think. and as for us hiding behind it? rubbish. due to us being inside the ffp, means we are able to sign players, should mm wish to do so without the restrictions these clubs face.
|gt81 added 17:28 - Dec 16|
So the answer to clubs spending themselves into administration is to hit them with whopping monetary fines that could put them into administration?
You need to login in order to post your comments
Blogs 278 bloggers
Ipswich Town Polls